Gay Marriage in California

2012-02-07 14:07:27

#151

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5801

FatherTed wrote:
do you have civil partnerships already or is this gay marriage thing trying to get it allowed in actual churches?

Has nil to do with forcing churches. If anyone ever tells you it does they are lying. Church ceremonies don't have any legal standing and won't be affected at all in gay marriage was passed. The marriage license given by the court is what they are aiming for.

A handful if states have civil unions, 5 or 6 I think could be wrong. Civil unions from one state to the other are not recognized. Civil unions also don't give all of the benefits of marriage. For instance some insurance plans won't recognize a civil union but they would a marriage.

2012-02-07 14:17:19

#152

FatherTed: xD; +3,936|6716|so randum

so right now in (most of?) america you can't have a man marrying a man (or indeed woman + woman)?

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

2012-02-07 14:21:50

#153

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5801

Yes in most of the U.S. it is impossible to marry a same sex partner or to get a civil union.

2012-02-07 14:37:27

#154

FatherTed: xD; +3,936|6716|so randum

what

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

2012-02-07 15:02:33

#155

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,978|6848|949

The moral majority strikes again.

2012-02-07 15:07:17

#156

west-phoenix-az: Guns don't kill people. . . joe bidens advice does; +632|6605

https://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p123/west-phoenix-az/BF2S/bf2s_sig_9mmbrass.jpg

2012-02-07 15:09:50

#157

mtb0minime: minimember; +2,418|6870

Who voted to plead the fifth?

*South Park voice* QUEER!

2012-02-07 15:25:04

#158

Doctor Strangelove: Real Battlefield Veterinarian.; +1,758|6684

mtb0minime wrote:
Who voted to plead the fifth?

*South Park voice* QUEER!

You don't plead the fifth, you invoke the fifth.

GOD.

DAMN.

2012-02-07 15:39:11

#159

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,978|6848|949

G@lt previously mentioned that he's an advocate of states determining things like this for themselves, as opposed to having federal laws. I'm generally in agreement there. However, in this case, certain entities like the LDS church invested heavily in opposition to prop 8. So you have a national organization focusing on one state's issue. My question is, how do you change/stop this from happening? Even though this legislation affects one state and one state's population in theory, its always been a national issue

2012-02-07 15:40:28

#160

cl4u53w1t2: Salon-Bolschewist; +269|6689|Kakanien

seriously, who the fuck cares if two women (or men) marry?! it doesn't affect my life in the slightest

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2oh3h3DvY0

2012-02-07 15:44:07

#161

mtb0minime: minimember; +2,418|6870

Doctor Strangelove wrote:
mtb0minime wrote:
Who voted to plead the fifth?

*South Park voice* QUEER!
You don't plead the fifth, you invoke the fifth.

GOD.

DAMN.

Just quoting the poll bro. Brohan. Brosef.

Also, at voting on other people's rights.

2012-02-07 15:56:30

#162

FatherTed: xD; +3,936|6716|so randum

so a man cannot love and legally be bound to a man (or a woman+woman) in the LAND OF THE FREE (for the most part)?

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

2012-02-07 15:56:51

#163

Doctor Strangelove: Real Battlefield Veterinarian.; +1,758|6684

mtb0minime wrote:
Doctor Strangelove wrote:
mtb0minime wrote:
Who voted to plead the fifth?

*South Park voice* QUEER!
You don't plead the fifth, you invoke the fifth.

GOD.

DAMN.
Just quoting the poll bro. Brohan. Brosef.

Also, at voting on other people's rights.

stfu mat, yerra towel!

2012-02-07 16:17:32

#164

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,978|6848|949

FatherTed wrote:
so a man cannot love and legally be bound to a man (or a woman+woman) in the LAND OF THE FREE (for the most part)?

In some states yes, some no. We're working on it.

2012-02-07 16:46:02

#165

pirana6: Go Cougs!; +691|6506|Washington St.

Turquoise wrote:
Again, this issue would be so much easier to deal with if we just separated marriage from government.

2012-02-07 16:49:21

#166

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5475|foggy bottom

what about the children?

Tu Stultus Es

2012-02-07 16:56:12

#167

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,978|6848|949

First step would be to address the myriad tax and other intrinsic financial benefits tied to marriage. It's not as simple as just removing 'marriage' from government documents.

2012-02-07 17:22:48

#168

HITNRUNXX: Member; +220|6925|Oklahoma City

Marriage stopping meaning anything but a tax break and health care coverage long ago... It is a joke... So who gives a frick if gays get married or not? Maybe they will improve the 50% divorce rate.

You know, regardless of "don't bring religion into to it" disclaimer, I will say this: If marriage were still a religious act, and people actually believed in it from a religious aspect anymore, then maybe they should do something to enforce that whole "until death do we part" agreement and make straight marriage mean something before going out and "fixing" the idea of gay marriage. If marriage had, say, a 5% divorce rate and was taken seriously, THEN they argue about it destroying the sanctity of the institution of marriage and such...

Maybe we could fix the whole problem by naming it something else... Like "Agreement to mostly just have sex with one other person while paying less money to the government and owning property together, while being allowed to be on the same health insurance policy, you know, until Obama hooks us all up for free."

2012-02-07 21:56:02

#169

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6621|North Carolina

FatherTed wrote:
so a man cannot love and legally be bound to a man (or a woman+woman) in the LAND OF THE FREE (for the most part)?

Pretty much... Freedom depends on what state you live in, since apparently, that's what matters most in this weird system.

Last edited by Turquoise (2012-02-07 21:56:38)

2012-02-07 21:58:29

#170

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6621|North Carolina

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
First step would be to address the myriad tax and other intrinsic financial benefits tied to marriage. It's not as simple as just removing 'marriage' from government documents.

This is true, but I guess if we really wanted to be fair about things, we wouldn't subsidize marriage via tax benefits. The fact that we have a child tax credit seems odd as well, since it's not like we have a problem with sustaining population growth.

2012-02-08 02:47:09

#171

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6627|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
First step would be to address the myriad tax and other intrinsic financial benefits tied to marriage. It's not as simple as just removing 'marriage' from government documents.
This is true, but I guess if we really wanted to be fair about things, we wouldn't subsidize marriage via tax benefits. The fact that we have a child tax credit seems odd as well, since it's not like we have a problem with sustaining population growth.

Those tax policies are intended to promote certain behaviors deemed "favorable" to the overall health of the nation and its economy...just like any other tax policy. Subsidize desired behavior, tax undesired behavior.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2012-02-08 02:55:37

#172

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6322|eXtreme to the maX

In the end its just a word, if they aren't in it for the religious aspect - which is unlikely given most religions don't allow it - then what are they after apart from the tax breaks and other benefits?

Fuck Israel

2012-02-08 02:56:54

#173

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6627|'Murka

Probably something crazy like love, devotion, etc.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2012-02-08 02:57:42

#174

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6322|eXtreme to the maX

Which doesn't require a piece of paper with 'marriage' on it.

Fuck Israel

2012-02-08 03:02:18

#175

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6627|'Murka

Of course it doesn't. But marriage--as a social contract--is a concrete step, formally instantiating their relationship and a level of commitment above just "being together."

Not to say those who stay together and aren't married aren't just as committed to one another; there's just less consequence if someone decides to break it off.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

Yes	67%	67% - 112
No	27%	27% - 45
I don't know	0%	0% - 0
Plead the fifth	3%	3% - 5
Other? (Please State)	1%	1% - 3
Total: 165

BF2S Forums Gay Marriage in California

Poll

FatherTed wrote:

mtb0minime wrote:

Doctor Strangelove wrote:

mtb0minime wrote:

mtb0minime wrote:

Doctor Strangelove wrote:

mtb0minime wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Board footer